Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It has always annoyed me that, although Brettonian Lords have the option of fighting on foot, the only units that they can really join are Men-at arms or Bowmen. Therefore, in a freindly game, would you think it reasonable if I took a unit of Brettonian Knights on foot as a core choice?

Basic stats and equipment would be the same as mounted knights, obviously bar a Warhorse and Lance. I would not allow more on-foot knights than Mounted ones, to not destroy the armies main theme. I'm thinking that a fair price would be around 15pts a model; do you agree?

well, actually you can't get a Bretonnian Lord (or Paladin) on foot as is says that if he doesn't have a Hippogryph or Pegasus then he MUST take a Barded Warhorse...unless he has the Vow of Empathy, in which case he wants to hang around with the peasants.

Besides, between having multiple horses at his stable and taking horses who have lost thier owners during battle there isn't really a chance that they'd be caught on foot.

and I think you shoud see the Empire Greatswords or the Warriors of Chaos for that matter when it comes to points cost. Compared to run-of-the-mill Swordmen from the Empire the Knights you propose would only cost about 7 or 8 points but at that price I wold probably stop using Men-at-Arms.

Good points, well made.

Lotet wrote:well, actually you can't get a Bretonnian Lord (or Paladin) on foot as is says that if he doesn't have a Hippogryph or Pegasus then he MUST take a Barded Warhorse...unless he has the Vow of Empathy, in which case he wants to hang around with the peasants.

Besides, between having multiple horses at his stable and taking horses who have lost thier owners during battle there isn't really a chance that they'd be caught on foot.

There are other situations when knights would fight dismounted, you big silly!

What if the lord's keep comes under attack? Sure, many would sally right out of the gates, but the lord would surely keep a retinue of dedicated defenders in places where peasants can't be trusted.

Much of Bretonnia is impoverished, even the lower tiers of the nobility. I could see horses being in short supply in desperate times. I bet the Skaven have a plague that just kills horses

There are places on a battlefield where it's plain dangerous or impossible for horses to go. Assuming there's some glory in charging at something they know is in the woods, why not get off your horse beforehand?

I like the idea. Also Lotet, you might be getting them pretty cheap, but you didn't say how you felt about being only able to have as many dismounted as you have mounted.

Fauntleroy, perhaps you could only have half that number dismounted, making hordes or steadfast fairly impossible for you?

EDIT: I only post when I've been drinking, so sorry about so much text

Knights have often fought unmounted, because the supply train wasn't enough to keep horses and riders fed, because the land was too rough for a horse to charge or manoeuvre across, because the knights had taken a defensive position and their horses would have been a weakness when receiving a charge, or because they were defending from a fortified position and had no use for their horses.

But it'd be odd to have a force of some mounted knights and some unmounted knights and no peasants and that'd be the most likely result. I'm not really how you'd solve that problem.

Agincourt:

France had 10,000 knights of which about 1,000 were mounted. English Knights also unmounted; pretty sure that included Henry the V. I think you should allow more unmounted than mounted personally...

Its hard to breach walls, rummage buildings, take a leak, etc from horseback...also horses die in the middle of battle and you don't have much time for your squire to run off and get you another.

Honestly, most of the time being a knight just meant you donated money, owned land, or hired a warband of soldiers. That honour, chivalry and martial prowess thing is a lot like Bushido - a complete fabrication.

Most of the time.

Squash wrote:Honestly, most of the time being a knight just meant you donated money, owned land, or hired a warband of soldiers. That honour, chivalry and martial prowess thing is a lot like Bushido - a complete fabrication.

Most of the time.

I think you're thinking of Barons. but yeah, I could believe that a Knight that simply inherited his rank might be lacking in certain qualities. though how could it be considered a Fabrication? I fought my brother with swords for a few months (casually) and we were able to efficiently defeat anyone without proper training. if a Knight (or Samurai) trains for 2 or 3 years then they'll outclass any conscript or unrefined Man-at-Arms. if I can beat people like that then I can only imagine how undefeatable a professional would seem. not to mention what they wield and what they wear.

Knights did inspire troops, like how Space Marines inspire the mobs that have been rounded up before a battle. after all, when your peasant enemies are armed with poorly crafted weapons it's hard to get through Plate Armour(think of slashing a car with a knife, your attack only works if you hit straight), let alone chain-mail that has the impact of your blows softened by the flesh and muscle underneath so you just give your foe a bad bruise. it's not impenetrable against the masses but if you know how to make your enemies blows strike where they won't work then it'll be worth more than the sum of its parts, which is easier than you think when you have training and your opponent has a farm.

as for Honour and Manners, well, I'm almost positive that's the aura they projected, at least to Nobles, and in the end isn't that what really counts?

I think he meant that, historically, the codes of Bushido and chivalry weren't generally held to.
To which I'll say: maybe. That most people abused their power or whatever, I could believe. But I expect there were no few who actually took their vows seriously.

Nevertheless, none of that matters. Brettonia isn't based on historic armies. It's based on Arthurian legend. And all of those knights were basically perfect. Except Sir Galahad. He was perfect.

A quick aside: you and you brother...fought...with swords? Like, kendo? Or ampguard (or however it's spelled)? Or did you set out to kill people with blades?

So...anyway. Something like empire greatswords. 8pts each? Maybe 9. No plate, no great weapons, but a shield and the Blessing.
...though the Blessing sucks a lot more when you're on foot. Time for Questing Knights on foot!

Warpsolution wrote:I think he meant that, historically, the codes of Bushido and chivalry weren't generally held to.
To which I'll say: maybe. That most people abused their power or whatever, I could believe. But I expect there were no few who actually took their vows seriously.

And no shortage that took their vows very seriously and still abused their position.

Warpsolution wrote:I think he meant that, historically, the codes of Bushido and chivalry weren't generally held to.
To which I'll say: maybe. That most people abused their power or whatever, I could believe. But I expect there were no few who actually took their vows seriously.

I wonder how many Knights went on the Holy Crusades. probably less than 10% at any given Crusade. still I don't expect them to fight in every battle but I do expect all but the most pitiful to take up arms when they're being attacked, maybe not directly on the battlements but still with a Sword in hand. but I'm pretty sure a King can take away a pathetic Knights rank if he really does nothing, grows fat on his riches, fails to raise a fighting force of any kind and cowers from any enemy. Heck, another Knight might call him a traitor or some such and take care of him personally. but that's all hypothetical, though it may apply to Brettonians.

Warpsolution wrote:A quick aside: you and you brother...fought...with swords? Like, kendo? Or ampguard (or however it's spelled)? Or did you set out to kill people with blades?

first it was with plastic tubes, then with broomsticks (without the brooms of course). no armour, no padded weapons and not much weight in the item. we 'played' enough it got to the point that we knew each others arm+weapon length that we could decide not to dodge because we knew we were out of reach, fun, though not very helpful against other people. still, I stopped and can't fight anymore but my brother continues to beat the untrained yet enthusiastic people that he fights. he can land a dozen blows without taking a hit or backwards step and he's the slimmest male I've ever met.

but we fight like Duelists, feint attacks, dodging by mere inches and stopping attacks with a flick of the wrist, nothing like Knights, Samurai or Beserkers so maybe it doesn't count

Brettonians are a lot more serious about their vows than "real" knights ever were. And there's a big ol' difference between being a courageous warrior and a virtuous person (the latter, I have begun to suspect, is just a fabricated place of mind that lessens the fear of mortality. But that's for another day). Brettonians are stalwart opponents of Chaos. But they also do downright evil, vile, and horrendous things to their lower classes.

Okay. I gotcha. Was this part of a course, with an instructor, or just people messing around?

And for the record, the attitude (if not the form) of fencing is very similar to that of kendo. Grace and speed and finesse. A samurai also lost a lil' honor if he couldn't kill his opponent without their blades crossing. Katanas were important, and they lost utility when damaged.
Actual rapiers and foils never saw use in real combat. Any amount of armour would defeat such a weapon. Blades of elegance, status, and skill (which further proved your status).

The European knight, though danced "the slow and deadly dance of the broad sword", with weapons designed to chew through metal over hewing flesh.

"Berserkers"-i.e. anyone who wasn't part of Rome/England/Spain whatever didn't really have a formal style. They didn't generally fight in formation. Lots of skirmishing and individualistic war fair. It didn't work too well. The one advantage, though, is that you occasionally run into a barbarian who's hopped up on enough drugs and is angry enough to kill you dead.

So...yeah. Unmounted knights sounds good. What kind of points you thinkin'?

Brettonians do horrible things to thier citizenship? I thought they just over-taxed them and didn't pay them any attention.

as for my Swordsmanship, I wish I was as good as my status but I haven't duelled properly in over a year, I'd be back down to WS2. I never had real training. and yeah, Rapiers were really more of a Gentlemans weapon, more for sport and competition than for actually killing your opponent. after all, it may let you beat an unarmoured person but it doesn't break bones so the meaner opponents wouldn't reel or drop in the way a Long Sword. now ignoring the Animes I've seen I always picture Samurai to deal brutal, bone breaking damage and block rather than dodge, I wouldn't know really.

annnyway, I still say 8 points. but they were purposfully left out so the army has a hole in their options, every army has them.

ImperialTard wrote:[list]What if the lord's keep comes under attack? Sure, many would sally right out of the gates, but the lord would surely keep a retinue of dedicated defenders in places where peasants can't be trusted.

mounted units automatically dismount when they fight indoors so that little bit of realism is taken care of at least.

I don't think mounted units can dismount anymore. I was at a tournament where a Brettonian player moaned and wailed when 30 High Elf archers entered a building. The Brettonian didn't have any non-cavalry.

As for Brettonian fluff, the taxation is pretty bad itself; peasants often starve/freeze to death, and plagues that even modest hygiene would stave off run rampant through their villages.
...but there are a few stories. A peasant who leads to the injury or death of a knight, even by accident or in self-defense, will be, if I remember correctly, tortured and then publicly dismembered or burned. His direct family will suffer the same fate. Any remaining kin (or neighbors, if lineage can't be traced) are footed with the bill for any expenses incurred in this process.

They say it's to insure that Chaos' taint doesn't spread (for why else would a peasant scare a noble's horse into bucking him off, if not for the corrupting touch of Chaos?), but...yeah.
And these are some of the good-er of the good guys...

would it be too much to believe that the majority of Knights, many of which were your typical impetuous squire, prefer to run an Ork or Beastman on thier Lance?

as for the buildings thing, yes, I was mistaken. Cavalry can assault buildings but they get off thier horses to do so and they quickly mount up again after the fight even if the defenders fled. my bad. but that means that the Brettonian player could still attack those elves. but without thier horses it's not really worth it... unless they're the special Knights who can kill a load of enemies without thier lances.

I don't think it's too much to think that at all. A knight errant's got to prove himself, after all.

Also, @Sebster: just noticed that last comment. Yeah, a lot of people were misguided. A mess of knights actually thought they were doing good in the world because their king/pope/whatever said it was. And as a general rule, I'd say that intent is more important than deed, from a personal, moral standpoint.

8pts/model? I can see that. Like Stormvermin +shields -halberds. Slower, but with a Ward. I'd compare them to Dwarf warriors, but the naked warrior seems to cost just 1pt too many for my tastes anyway (he should just come with a shield).

Warpsolution wrote:Also, @Sebster: just noticed that last comment. Yeah, a lot of people were misguided. A mess of knights actually thought they were doing good in the world because their king/pope/whatever said it was. And as a general rule, I'd say that intent is more important than deed, from a personal, moral standpoint.

I was more thinking along the lines that a person can be pious and take their vows very seriously, but still be a dick. Martin Luther comes to mind.

Hm. I suppose. By "dick", I assume you mean arrogant, disdainful, etc.? 'Cause I can totally see that. Part of the risk when you walk a high path; you might notice just how far up you are compared to everyone else.

This topic has already been discussed, the link is http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/323139.page

Warpsolution wrote:Hm. I suppose. By "dick", I assume you mean arrogant, disdainful, etc.? 'Cause I can totally see that. Part of the risk when you walk a high path; you might notice just how far up you are compared to everyone else.

No, I mean that while his devout nature put him at the forefront of a movement that led to reform in the church and much good, he was also a dick. When people wouldn't convert to his way of thinking he grew pretty hostile pretty quickly. Look at what he wrote about the Jews, for instance.

Warpsolution wrote:I think he meant that, historically, the codes of Bushido and chivalry weren't generally held to.
To which I'll say: maybe. That most people abused their power or whatever, I could believe. But I expect there were no few who actually took their vows seriously.

No, what I meant was Bushido and chivalry are FOR THE MOST PART a fabrication after the fact. Bushido didn't really exist until the late 1920s, maybe early 30s. Chivalry existed in the 14th century, but it pretty much just meant that you were a knight. If you walked into a tavern in fullplate armour, with a lance, a fancy hat, and keys to a nice estate - you were being chivalrous. That whole honesty and bravery thing came later.

Honestly, Bushido and Chivalry were really just very successful propaganda campaigns, well after the fact.

Well, sure. Mainly because moral codes beyond or in addition to one's religion weren't thought to be necessary. The Priority of Human Interests, or whatever that neat pyramid chart is called.

But anyway...